Alibi Defenses to Traffic Tickets

[RJR]

Technically an ALIBI is not an affirmative defense, so the burden does not legally shift to the defendant, but when summed up, it does.

If he asserts his 5th AM right, what recourse does the court have in deciding it was or was not him?

The camera, or so called "silent witness", is not, of course human, but is just as just as good as a human eyeball who sees ONLY a license plate.

It's similar to an illegal parking ticket, the registered owner will get the ticket on the windshield, not the driver, as s/he is not there. That constitutes a prima facie case. If the owner was not driving, then his alibi, or defense, will have to convince the trier of fact that.

If he does not answer the summons due to the fact it was not him driving, he has bigger problems. He must plead such.

[RJR]

So, in effect, are you saying all he has to do is say it was not him driving and he will win?

[RJR]

Burden of proof;

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05

Now, as I said, an alibi is not a technical AD per the OSC, it amounts to the same thing. Yes, the burden of proof HERE, is on the prosecution, but BRD is easy if you have circumstantial evidence that is overwhelming.

The court in that case MUST dismiss EVERY camera case on those merits, if the driver can not be ID', won't happen. Akron v. Mendenhall, OSC, (from memory) on a certified question, discusses similar proof, although there, by a preponderance of guilt.

[RJR]

Wikipedia has no bearing, and as I said, before, an ALIBI is not a technical AD, I said that.

I don't need to consult wiki, criminal law was my major in college.

[Fuzzz]

The license plate ID is enough to charge the owner, as a prima facie case. It is then up to your son, IF, he was the one not driving to provide an Alibi. In this case, the Affirmative defense is now burdened upon your son. If unable to answer as to self incrimination, or if answered and not evidence worthy, he will loose.

False. The license plate is not prima facie evidence to issue a citation to the vehicle owner. The burden does not shift to the owner, it remains with the prosecution.

It's similar to an illegal parking ticket, the registered owner will get the ticket on the windshield, not the driver, as s/he is not there. That constitutes a prima facie case. If the owner was not driving, then his alibi, or defense, will have to convince the trier of fact that.

If he does not answer the summons due to the fact it was not him driving, he has bigger problems. He must plead such.

Once again this is false. A moving violation under this section does not work like a parking citation. The police can not cite someone merely because they are the registered owner of the vehicle. They have the burden of proof to show that the cited person was the one operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

Your second part is accurate though. If he was issued a citation then he must take care of it, even if the burden was not properly met. Sticking your head in the sand or ignoring it will not make it go away. It needs to be properly handled and dismissed.

I don't need to consult wiki, criminal law was my major in college.

Thats scary.

[RJR]

If he was cited under state law, this is true about ID'ing the owner. For some reason, and I reread the whole thread just now, I thought he lived in Cincy for some reason, my mind wanders sometimes. Under Cincy ordinance there is no such provision as to ID the driver first.

After reading the thread again, here, I see there was no mention of a City, that was my error. Elay was right on state law.

As far as my being knowledgeable on criminal law being "scary" well!! I've been on legal message boards off an on for 15 years. I have been cited as wrong before, as who hasn't been, but never been called "scary". There's an ex-cop on here, who's name I need not bring in, that was a poster buddy of mine all the way back on the old Findlaw boards, funny how he and other's never said that, hmm!

Stick around!